WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it approved a $43,000 soundproof phone booth last year for the office of embattled Administrator Scott Pruitt, a congressional watchdog unit said on Monday.

The Government Accountability Office said the EPA violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. The law prohibits an agency from obligating more than $5,000 in federal funds to furnish, redecorate or make improvements in the office of a presidential appointee without first notifying appropriations committees in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The EPA also violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses in excess of funds available in appropriations, the GAO said.

So, a government investigatory agency investigated, and found Pruitt to have broke the law. Any more questions, Joe?

_________________Who are these...flag-sucking halfwits fleeced fooled by stupid little rich kids They speak for all that is cruel stupidThey are racists hate mongers I piss down the throats of these Nazis Im too old to worry whether they like it Fuck them.HST.

Last edited by rainwater on Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it approved a $43,000 soundproof phone booth last year for the office of embattled Administrator Scott Pruitt, a congressional watchdog unit said on Monday.

The Government Accountability Office said the EPA violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. The law prohibits an agency from obligating more than $5,000 in federal funds to furnish, redecorate or make improvements in the office of a presidential appointee without first notifying appropriations committees in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The EPA also violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses in excess of funds available in appropriations, the GAO said.

jesus...this pruitt whankhole made a mockery of that in less than 6mos.then he got on airplanes and traveled....#yafukinmoocher.

_________________Who are these...flag-sucking halfwits fleeced fooled by stupid little rich kids They speak for all that is cruel stupidThey are racists hate mongers I piss down the throats of these Nazis Im too old to worry whether they like it Fuck them.HST.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it approved a $43,000 soundproof phone booth last year for the office of embattled Administrator Scott Pruitt, a congressional watchdog unit said on Monday.

The Government Accountability Office said the EPA violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. The law prohibits an agency from obligating more than $5,000 in federal funds to furnish, redecorate or make improvements in the office of a presidential appointee without first notifying appropriations committees in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The EPA also violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses in excess of funds available in appropriations, the GAO said.

So, a government investigatory agency investigated, and found Pruitt to have broke the law. Any more questions, Joe?

It was rigged I tells ya.....It was rigged.

_________________Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.

The dumb thing is there are suppose to be people who oversee how the agency's funds are spent from things costing a couple of dollars to items over a million dollars. Usually, the smaller dollar value items are delegated to departments and items above a certain amount require higher approval. A $43,000 phone booth would be an item that would require higher approval (other than from Pruitt) so that person needs to explain who authorized the purchase and why.

EPA violated section 710 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017 when it failed to notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate prior to obligating in excess of $5,000 to install a soundproof privacy booth for the office of the Administrator during his period of appointment. Because EPA used its appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, EPA violated the Antideficiency Act. EPA should report its Antideficiency Act violation as required by law."

So the GAO found the EPA, not Pruitt, in violation(Pruitt's name is nowhere in the report) and it appears that when they make the proper notifications all is good - No Problem.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it approved a $43,000 soundproof phone booth last year for the office of embattled Administrator Scott Pruitt, a congressional watchdog unit said on Monday.

The Government Accountability Office said the EPA violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. The law prohibits an agency from obligating more than $5,000 in federal funds to furnish, redecorate or make improvements in the office of a presidential appointee without first notifying appropriations committees in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

The EPA also violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses in excess of funds available in appropriations, the GAO said.

So, a government investigatory agency investigated, and found Pruitt to have broke the law. Any more questions, Joe?

_________________Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.

I’m okay with terminating Pruit. So is the standard going forward going to be that cabinet secretary level personnel can be terminated if facts show they or someone under their supervision spends 50,000 or more either without authorization or on something judged to be unnecessary. I am okay with the standard. I don’t like throwing taxpayer money away anymore than the next person. I just want to make sure what the standard is going to be and that standard is going to apply to everyone regardless of party. How about it GoU?

I’m okay with terminating Pruit. So is the standard going forward going to be that cabinet secretary level personnel can be terminated if facts show they or someone under their supervision spends 50,000 or more either without authorization or on something judged to be unnecessary. I am okay with the standard. I don’t like throwing taxpayer money away anymore than the next person. I just want to make sure what the standard is going to be and that standard is going to apply to everyone regardless of party. How about it GoU?

The standard applies to everyone regardless of party. The problem right now is that we are dealing with a swarm of locusts.

I’m okay with terminating Pruit. So is the standard going forward going to be that cabinet secretary level personnel can be terminated if facts show they or someone under their supervision spends 50,000 or more either without authorization or on something judged to be unnecessary. I am okay with the standard. I don’t like throwing taxpayer money away anymore than the next person. I just want to make sure what the standard is going to be and that standard is going to apply to everyone regardless of party. How about it GoU?

Did you see the words "broke the law"???

The standard YOU SET was breaking the law, and if a governmental investigatory unit found they broke the law, then they should be terminated. That is YOUR standard, Joe. But now you're gutless and running from it, and trying to make excuses for him. Not surprised.

The standard YOU SET was breaking the law, and if a governmental investigatory unit found they broke the law, then they should be terminated. That is YOUR standard, Joe. But now you're gutless and running from it, and trying to make excuses for him. Not surprised.

Aw c'mon GoU. You know what happens when you challenge Joe like this. You get a six paragraph authoritative discourse. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The standard YOU SET was breaking the law, and if a governmental investigatory unit found they broke the law, then they should be terminated. That is YOUR standard, Joe. But now you're gutless and running from it, and trying to make excuses for him. Not surprised.

I never said you had to break the law to either be terminated or to get due process. I do believe that in this country you are entitled to due process under the law when you are accused of a crime. I didn’t make the rule. That standard has been around for a couple of hundred years.

But as you have pointed out an outside agency has found that the agency headed by Pruit violated the law. I don’t think it is a criminal violation nor do I know that Pruit was personally implicated. But it is an agency that he heads and for which he is responsible. That appears to be more than enough for you and asI have said I am okay with that standard as long as you are. So what do you say? Or do you have a standard in mind that you can articulate?

Aw c'mon GoU. You know what happens when you challenge Joe like this. You get a six paragraph authoritative discourse. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Lying, Cheating, Covering their ass, it is after all what Republicans are known for.

_________________Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.

I never said you had to break the law to either be terminated or to get due process. I do believe that in this country you are entitled to due process under the law when you are accused of a crime. I didn’t make the rule. That standard has been around for a couple of hundred years.

But as you have pointed out an outside agency has found that the agency headed by Pruit violated the law. I don’t think it is a criminal violation nor do I know that Pruit was personally implicated. But it is an agency that he heads and for which he is responsible. That appears to be more than enough for you and asI have said I am okay with that standard as long as you are. So what do you say? Or do you have a standard in mind that you can articulate?

Wow. He's the one that ordered the spending. Now you are trying to say that he didn't know about it? Are you saying that he isn't responsible for his department's spending? This is something he ordered for himself, not some random spending an underling did.

"Yeah, I had no idea about that fancy steak dinner I ate at that restaurant. Nope, I didn't order it, my secretary did, and I had no idea what it cost!"

But he's not the one making that excuse, YOU are. Any way to weasel out of responsibility for his actions. No, Pruitt didn't violate the law, his agency did! Man, you sure do spin.

Wow. He's the one that ordered the spending. Now you are trying to say that he didn't know about it? Are you saying that he isn't responsible for his department's spending? This is something he ordered for himself, not some random spending an underling did.

"Yeah, I had no idea about that fancy steak dinner I ate at that restaurant. Nope, I didn't order it, my secretary did, and I had no idea what it cost!"

But he's not the one making that excuse, YOU are. Any way to weasel out of responsibility for his actions. No, Pruitt didn't violate the law, his agency did! Man, you sure do spin.

In case you have not been keeping up with the conversation, I said I had NO problem terminating Pruit. I just asked if you were prepared to apply the same standards of conduct to everyone. I am having a little difficulty understanding your hesitation to answer.

In case you have not been keeping up with the conversation, I said I had NO problem terminating Pruit. I just asked if you were prepared to apply the same standards of conduct to everyone. I am having a little difficulty understanding your hesitation to answer.

Yeah, Joe, and I read the REST of your post too, where you pulled out all that bullshit.

This is all spending he ordered. And were he a Dem, you would have stopped at "he should be terminated". You'd not have went into the entire excuse tour.

I asked your position on Pruitt. You said you would have to have him investigated. Well, he's been investigated. Yet you continue to make excuses for him. The dance is funny to see.

Yeah, Joe, and I read the REST of your post too, where you pulled out all that bullshit.

This is all spending he ordered. And were he a Dem, you would have stopped at "he should be terminated". You'd not have went into the entire excuse tour.

I asked your position on Pruitt. You said you would have to have him investigated. Well, he's been investigated. Yet you continue to make excuses for him. The dance is funny to see.

If it looks funny to you perhaps it is because I am not the one dancing. You are. I already said terminate the man. I already said he is responsible for the actions taken either by him or his employees. It’s called accountability. Maybe you haven’t heard of it. What is curious is that you want to hold some people accountable to a standard that you are unwilling to hold to yourself or apply to people you support. Otherwise known as a double standard.

So I took a position. Are you willing to take one or do you continue to avoid committing to living by the same rules you would apply to others?

If it looks funny to you perhaps it is because I am not the one dancing. You are. I already said terminate the man. I already said he is responsible for the actions taken either by him or his employees. It’s called accountability. Maybe you haven’t heard of it. What is curious is that you want to hold some people accountable to a standard that you are unwilling to hold to yourself or apply to people you support. Otherwise known as a double standard.

So I took a position. Are you willing to take one or do you continue to avoid committing to living by the same rules you would apply to others?

No, Joe, you took a position and then waffled. You say you don't know if Pruitt knew about the money spent, then wanted to know if I wanted to fire him because of actions of underlings.

When he ORDERED the spending. This is just one thing he's done that's a crime. More to come.

Yes, Joe, when anyone commits such a crime, they need to be fired. It's that simple. I said earlier that cabinet members have been fired for even the appearance of such wrongdoing, and of course, you didn't want to believe that, either, you wrongly said that Sununu wasn't forced to resign, that he did it of his own free will.

No, Joe, you took a position and then waffled. You say you don't know if Pruitt knew about the money spent, then wanted to know if I wanted to fire him because of actions of underlings.

When he ORDERED the spending. This is just one thing he's done that's a crime. More to come.

Yes, Joe, when anyone commits such a crime, they need to be fired. It's that simple. I said earlier that cabinet members have been fired for even the appearance of such wrongdoing, and of course, you didn't want to believe that, either, you wrongly said that Sununu wasn't forced to resign, that he did it of his own free will.

What a bullshit artist you are.

So this is your opportunity to demonstrate just how consistently you would apply your principles. Would you apply the same standard to everyone regardless of party? Not a difficult question. You seem to avoid answering it directly. Yes or No. You repeatedly ask me such questions and then tuck tail and run when they are out to you. What is the standard here? That’s all I want to know. Are you prepared to set one?

So this is your opportunity to demonstrate just how consistently you would apply your principles. Would you apply the same standard to everyone regardless of party? Not a difficult question. You seem to avoid answering it directly. Yes or No. You repeatedly ask me such questions and then tuck tail and run when they are out to you. What is the standard here? That’s all I want to know. Are you prepared to set one?

False equivalency...comparing the Democratic Party with the current incarnation of the Republican Party. As far as the current Executive Branch, I quote former GW Bush Communications Director Nicole Wallace, "The criminal enterprise otherwise known as the Trump Administration." The question you ask is not a "yes or no" question. There has never been anything in the history of American government like the criminal enterprise in the executive and the collusion of the Republican Party in that enterprise.

The same standards apply to a point. Do the same standards apply to American politics right now? They do not. If there was any legitimate reason for a special counsel to have been appointed to investigate the Obama Administration, one would have been appointed. Whining about it now is a blatant attempt at bullshit misdirection.

Trump call his "lyin' Comey"? The count right now of public Trump lies sits at over 24000. And you think the "same standards" should be applied? I'm tempted to say "WTF is wrong with you?", but I already know WTF is wrong with you. You're a fucking confederate con.

So this is your opportunity to demonstrate just how consistently you would apply your principles. Would you apply the same standard to everyone regardless of party? Not a difficult question. You seem to avoid answering it directly. Yes or No. You repeatedly ask me such questions and then tuck tail and run when they are out to you. What is the standard here? That’s all I want to know. Are you prepared to set one?

Yes, Joe, unlike you, I apply my standards regardless of party. Were it a Dem, I wouldn't have made the excuses you did. My post would have been a LOT shorter.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum